The Haines borough planning commission has issued a controversial permit for a helicopter landing space adjacent to a residential neighborhood. The permit came during a long meeting Thursday. Many neighbors testified they do not want the noise.
Over a three and a half hour meeting, the Haines planning commission reviewed and approved an application for a conditional use permit for a heliport. The heliport will be on land zoned for general use, but across the road from a residential neighborhood. The commission received nearly 30 written comments and 10 people testified. A clear majority opposed the permit.
The issue has come before the borough before and some residents expressed frustration at having to testify again.
Szatkowski: “I think it’s fifteen public hearings about heliports just in my neighborhood alone.”
Haines resident, Nicholas Szatkowski went on to say that previous decisions to deny heliports in the area should have set a legal precedent. He said residents of the upper valley have a right to enjoy its silence.
A Juneau superior court judge upheld a decision by the planning commission in 2016 to deny a heliport application in the same area, citing undue noise. Last December the commission issued a permit to a heliski operator a couple miles away. This decision was overturned on appeal by the borough assembly.
Proponents of the proposed heliport referred to it as being “on the edge of civilization”. They also claimed the location would allow the aircrafts to fly the shortest route to a proposed mine further up valley.
George and Lynette Campbell requested the permit as owners of the property. They operate a private airport there, and they have allowed helicopters to operate from there in the past. Recently the borough issued a cease and desist order, and urged them to apply for a conditional use permit. They claim helicopter landings are a very small part of their business, and that having a heliport as a secure area will make helicopter operations safer.
George Campbell does not agree with his neighbor’s claim to a right to a quiet homelife.
Campbell: “We live in a general use zone. And I’ve heard: “Well people live there because it’s quiet.” No, we relish the fact that we can do anything we want. We can run snow machines, we can have dog teams, all of that. Helicopters are not a forbidden use, helicopters are a conditional use.”
After the comments, the Planning Commission discussed some conditions for issuing the permit. They agreed to restrict the hours when helicopters serving as shuttles to nearby operations could operate. So-called air taxis would be limited to fly between 8am and 5pm. Commissioner Diana Lapham proposed that the permit should be reconsidered after one year.
The planning commission voted six to one to issue the permit for one year.
During comments afterward, resident Laurie Mastrella expressed surprise that the permit was issued with no limitation on the number of flights.
Mastrella: “That seems really loose. And especially, when I think about heliskiing, one thing that heli skiing operations have to deal with is limited skier days. I was waiting for somebody to limit landings. Where was that? I don’t know if there is a place to add that somewhere else in the process, but it would be nice to have some kind of a limitation.”
She expressed disappointment that the commission did not consider monitoring the noise impact or identify a way to enforce the hours of operation. The Borough later confirmed no monitoring is planned.
When the commission issued a similar permit in the Chilkat valley this winter, the community’s reaction was strong. The permit got overturned on appeal, and residents started a petition to change the borough charter.
The planning commissioners are currently appointed by the mayor. On June 6th there will be a special election to decide whether commissioners should be elected by residents.
Residents have ten days to file an appeal to the commission’s latest decision. If appealed, the borough assembly will have to decide whether or not to permit the heliport.
I would like to say that the (minority) voiced their opinions. To say thirty people are the majority is absolutely wrong, maybe thirty opposed the issue, but not the upper valley residents. Its a airport, wtf? If you don’t like it go back to California or what ever shit hole you came from. Its the silent majority that spoke the loudest.